I want to respond to a bunch of stuff here, and I will when I have time, but for now I'm going to focus on this specific question:

Dog-Poop_Walker wrote:

Let's just stick to that one for starters. Say that they have positions for 100 people and 50 of them will be males and 50 females. Just for simplicities sake of argument holding to binary gender. After the quota was filled for either grouping, would denial of further applicants in that group constitute discrimination?

YES!!

If Female (or male) applicants #51-60 are better qualified than Male (or female) applicants #41-50, that is a blatant form of discrimination. You're accepting people because of their gender, not their abilities or qualifications. Quotas are by far the worst form of discrimination IMHO.

(yes, I'm aware the "level playing field" argument comes into play here, but I'll address that later)

Either present some viable evidence that white males are as a group discriminated against or don't expect a response to your straw man argument.

As a general aggregate compared to most other population groups? No.

Does discrimination still occur in a lot of situations, far more than are usually addressed by the media? Absolutely.

Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 1:10 am

Message

Dog-Poop_WalkerMaster

Joined: 28 Jan 2012Posts: 1169Location: Deserts without mirages

Darth_Henning wrote:

Quotas are by far the worst form of discrimination IMHO.

Thanks for the response. Without putting words in people's mouths, I think that we can all agree a strict qouta system like that has a fundamental flaw that can never satisfy fairness... and that is only for a simple binary gender distinction.

The opposite course is a true individual merit system and that would take into account a persons group affiliation as it's relevant to the situation, but that is problematic as well. Because you are not painting people with a broad stroke of admission standards, it would be based on an individual to determine the applicants merit and their choices would be subject to personal bias which was what the quota system sought to eliminate._________________Unsure whether it was desire or despair that kept me drawing breath. When all my dreams came down to nothing, left me just another piece of meat. For you I carried my life on in my teeth. Through betrayed years and bloody tears, and pits where you can only crawl. Poor Grendel's had an accident... So may you all.

Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 7:56 am

Message

Taral-DLOSMaster

Joined: 23 Nov 2010Posts: 1810Location: Ontario, Canada

My father used to be the Chief of the Fire Department in the town I grew up in. This was a small town Fire Department, where only 2-3 people were full time and the rest were part-time (what we usually consider "volunteer firefighters", but they still get paid).

This small-town force had no women on staff. My dad used to get criticized for it. And he had the best response. Something to the effect of "None of the women who've applied have ever out-competed the men who applied, especially with regards to physical strength. And when your house is on fire and you're trapped inside, would you want to be rescued by the person who was hired because of affirmative action and can't pull you to safety? Or the person who can physically carry you out?"

He's Fire Chief of a larger city now, and they have women firefighters, but there's a larger sampling. More women apply, more likely some will meet the physical requirements.

The city I live in now did a blitz a few years ago actively trying to hire more women and minority firefighters. My first thought was "...this could result in people dying, because you may select people of a specific gender or race over someone who is more qualified." But it turned out that the firefighters being hired were for outreach purposes. When the firefighters visit schools to teach about fire safety, kids respond better to a woman than they do a big, burly, bear-type of a man. And the minority recruitment was to have better insight into specific fire hazards that certain cultures may have (e.g. a culture that cooks a lot with grease is more likely to have a grease fire), and so someone of their own background was more likely to identify that risk and teach safety (maybe even in the right language)._________________"I'm...from Earth."

^ I agree with your dad 100%, Taral. The person who is best for the job should be hired regardless of gender, race, or the percentage of demographs already in the field._________________
Where sky and water meet,
Where the waves grow sweet,
Doubt not, Reepicheep,
To find all you seek,
There is the utter east.

Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 1:33 pm

Message

DancelittleewokEUC Staff

Joined: 15 Sep 2010Posts: 1177Location: Kansas

Reepicheep wrote:

The person who is best for the job should be hired regardless of gender, race, or the percentage of demographs already in the field.

Which is why we have anti-discrimination laws to begin with.

Walker wrote:

Let's just stick to that one for starters. Say that they have positions for 100 people and 50 of them will be males and 50 females. Just for simplicities sake of argument holding to binary gender. After the quota was filled for either grouping, would denial of further applicants in that group constitute discrimination?

I think that's oversimplification. The simple act of not hiring someone doesn't imply gender bias on part of the employer. People are hired for numerous reasons. In that situation, the employer has all the positions filled. No gender discrimination implied. If that were the case, it would discriminate both sexes, assuming the positions were open to all applicants, assuming he or she was following the law.

Darth Henning wrote:

Does discrimination still occur in a lot of situations, far more than are usually addressed by the media? Absolutely.

You could say that about any group, because it's an argument from silence._________________Observation: Life would be cooler if everyone spoke like HK-47.

Last edited by Dancelittleewok on Mon Oct 15, 2012 7:34 pm; edited 2 times in total

Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 2:47 pm

Message

Darth_HenningMaster

Joined: 12 Apr 2011Posts: 549Location: Canada

Dancelittleewok wrote:

Darth Henning wrote:

Does discrimination still occur in a lot of situations, far more than are usually addressed by the media? Absolutely.

You could say that about any group, because it's argument from silence.

OK, fair point. I'm just saying that racial bias against those of African, South American and Asian descent is not uncommon to hear about. Neither is gender bias against women. When the reverse occurs, its all but never mentioned.

(the recent Texas court case being a very interesting counter-example, I'm quite curious to watch)

Gender or racial bias is a problem regardless of who its against, and work definitely needs to be done. I am just pointing out how the most common statistics are inaccurately portraying the problem, not saying that there isn't a problem.

Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 3:08 pm

Message

CerrineaMaster

Joined: 09 Jun 2009Posts: 1491

I absolutely don't deny there's gender bias against men, and as the mother of 3 sons, it really gets me going. I just don't think it's nearly as institutionalized as other forms of bias or bigotry. Nor do I want to see it institutionalized. Not only would that be hypocritical, it would be a giant step backwards.

But the facts are that, as a group, white males hold the majority of wealth and political power in this country. That is a tremendous advantage, and it's also an historical one. It hasn't even been 100 years since women got the right to vote (let alone run for office). It's been even less since all white male juries fell by the wayside. Until the 20th century, pretty much only white males went to college. Why do you think the United Negro College Fund exists? White males have simply never had to come from behind to achieve parity in this country, like the rest of us.

I'd like to think that more blatant forms of bias and bigotry have been eradicated, but then I went on Facebook this morning and saw this. *sigh*

I'd like to think that more blatant forms of bias and bigotry have been eradicated, but then I went on Facebook this morning and saw this. *sigh*

Blatant forms of bigotry are indeed still alive and well. I was reminded of this when African-American actress Stacey Dash announced her support for Romney on Twitter; prompting many Obama supporters to respond with tweets calling her a "jigaboo," "house nigger," etc.

Really horrible

-

Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 3:41 pm

Message

Dog-Poop_WalkerMaster

Joined: 28 Jan 2012Posts: 1169Location: Deserts without mirages

Don't worry about that "white in the white house" guy. He's not appealing to Romney voters. No one is taken seriously in this country who is openly and self identified as a racist. The real problematic racists are far more subtle and intelligent about making statements that people will actually have a chance of getting behind and convincing that they are not actually racist.

In all likelihood that person is not serious at all and he's probably just a plant to generate propaganda. He's either a Democrat plant to make Romney supporters look like open racists, or he's a Republican plant to deflect away from race issues by getting people to attack a non issue of fake racism._________________Unsure whether it was desire or despair that kept me drawing breath. When all my dreams came down to nothing, left me just another piece of meat. For you I carried my life on in my teeth. Through betrayed years and bloody tears, and pits where you can only crawl. Poor Grendel's had an accident... So may you all.

Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 7:28 pm

Message

Jedi JoeMaster

Joined: 11 Jun 2009Posts: 1597

That "White back in the White House" guy really saddens me. Why do we still have people like that in the 21st century?

But honestly, I think that the people who voted for Obama only because he was black are just as racist. We need to stop looking at skin color altogether._________________

Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 10:20 pm

Message

Caedus_16Master

Joined: 15 Apr 2008Posts: 4843Location: Korriban

Jedi Joe wrote:

That "White back in the White House" guy really saddens me. Why do we still have people like that in the 21st century?

But honestly, I think that the people who voted for Obama only because he was black are just as racist. We need to stop looking at skin color altogether.

My cousin voted for him because he thought it was so cool and down-to-earth that he played basketball with kids on MTV, I BS you not. Sure its nice and down-to-earth, but its also openly exploiting poor inner city children and in no way qualifies him to be president. Literally the dumbest reason to vote for a guy I've seen so far._________________Perfection is a lifelong pursuit requiring sacrifice. The only way to get it quicker is to sacrifice the most.

Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2012 8:50 am

Message

DancelittleewokEUC Staff

Joined: 15 Sep 2010Posts: 1177Location: Kansas

Darth Henning wrote:

OK, fair point. I'm just saying that racial bias against those of African, South American and Asian descent is not uncommon to hear about. Neither is gender bias against women. When the reverse occurs, its all but never mentioned.

I'd think since reverse sexism is unusual, it would be more news worthy.

Quote:

Gender or racial bias is a problem regardless of who its against, and work definitely needs to be done. I am just pointing out how the most common statistics are inaccurately portraying the problem, not saying that there isn't a problem.

In regards to Malala, the girl the Taliban shot, there's a massive backlash against the Taliban occurring in Pakistan.

Also after she survived, the Taliban vowed to finish the job. Malala has been evacuated to a Birmingham, England hospital for her safety and recovery. The United Arab Emirates sent a special medical jet to transport her there. The hospital in Birmingham already had to refuse entrance to two "well wishers"._________________Roqoo Depot co-founder.

Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2012 11:25 am

Message

Darth_HenningMaster

Joined: 12 Apr 2011Posts: 549Location: Canada

Dancelittleewok wrote:

Darth Henning wrote:

OK, fair point. I'm just saying that racial bias against those of African, South American and Asian descent is not uncommon to hear about. Neither is gender bias against women. When the reverse occurs, its all but never mentioned.

I'd think since reverse sexism is unusual, it would be more news worthy.

When it does go public it does get a fair bit of press due to the "really, that happens?" factor. But its also a lot more quickly forgotten as an isolated case, when in reality its not as isolated as implied.

But while it is significantly less common than other forms of discrimination, its still much more than reported outside a few detailed statistical reviews.

Dancelittleewok wrote:

Quote:

Gender or racial bias is a problem regardless of who its against, and work definitely needs to be done. I am just pointing out how the most common statistics are inaccurately portraying the problem, not saying that there isn't a problem.

Couple problems here. The article never addressed WHY there are fewer women in the boardroom. Just that "there are" and "this is a problem".

It neglects several points that reduce their seniority compared to their piers, or make them less practical candidates for the position. On average:

- women more time off, not including maternity leave reducing years on the job
- women work fewer hours per week, and less overtime, reducing experience
- women retire (on average) two years before men, reducing time they have the seniority to be selected for such positions, and the duration of their tenures in such positions

Also, though rarely studied, the available data suggests women are more likely to apply for administrative rather than managerial positions.

There was also a study I read a long time ago that I think gave the percentages of qualified applicants for management positions at one company as 30% female and 70% male. But that may be an inaccurate memory or an isolated incident, so don't quote me on that one.

Discrimination may well play a factor, but to say that it's the only reason for the difference is completely inaccurate. There are a lot of other factors that cause these issues as well. Aiming for a 50-50 split would also be discriminatory.

My comments refer to the North American/European situation. Many MANY parts of the world still have massive issues that must be addressed.

Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2012 5:37 pm

Message

DancelittleewokEUC Staff

Joined: 15 Sep 2010Posts: 1177Location: Kansas

Darth_Henning wrote:

When it does go public it does get a fair bit of press due to the "really, that happens?" factor. But its also a lot more quickly forgotten as an isolated case, when in reality its not as isolated as implied.

Based on the Maryland case, should we consider Ladies' Night at bars reverse sexism then? Because that happens weekly.

Quote:

Couple problems here. The article never addressed WHY there are fewer women in the boardroom. Just that "there are" and "this is a problem".

No, Richard Branson is arguing we need more women on the basis of statistics, saying it's best for business. He, then, suggests what companies can do to create an environment that's more women-friendly. From Catalyst, here's a look at sex discrimination and sexual harassment comparing men and women.

Quote:

It neglects several points that reduce their seniority compared to their piers, or make them less practical candidates for the position. On average:

- women more time off, not including maternity leave reducing years on the job
- women work fewer hours per week, and less overtime, reducing experience
- women retire (on average) two years before men, reducing time they have the seniority to be selected for such positions, and the duration of their tenures in such positions

I don't know about you guys, but when there's a family crisis, it's not Dad who takes time off. It's Mom. It seems men don't try to do it all. Men throw everything into business, while women have to juggle a family and a career. Do gender roles explain why women work less, take more time off, etc.? The blog of U.S. Department of Labor addresses some of the myths surrounding the pay gap.

Quote:

Also, though rarely studied, the available data suggests women are more likely to apply for administrative rather than managerial positions.

Again, what's your source for the provided stats? If you could link, it would be greatly appreciated.

Quote:

Discrimination may well play a factor, but to say that it's the only reason for the difference is completely inaccurate. There are a lot of other factors that cause these issues as well. Aiming for a 50-50 split would also be discriminatory.

Of course, there are other mitigating factors. I'm not arguing that or a strict quota. If we focus on the numbers alone, we miss an important issue: how a women is treated within an institution. For example, I'm only girl on staff here. I don't feel like I'm at a disadvantage. As a whole, I've been treated well. Numbers alone don't prove discrimination, but certainly can point to it in some cases.

Quote:

And that's just wrong.

My comments refer to the North American/European situation. Many MANY parts of the world still have massive issues that must be addressed.

100% agreed._________________Observation: Life would be cooler if everyone spoke like HK-47.